Answer:
0 < k < 2
Step-by-step explanation:
<u>In the first quadrant both of x and y get positive values, so </u>
<u>And replacing x with 2k in the second equation:</u>
- 3x + 2y = 12
- 3*2k + 2y = 12
- 2y= 12 - 6k
- y = 6 - 3k
<u>Since y > 0:</u>
<u>Combining both k > 0 and k < 2, we get:</u>
Answer:
A, C, E
Step-by-step explanation:
From the table you can see that the water depth cahnges
for every
of snow (option B is false).
This means that the function modelling this situation is linear function (option A is true and option D is false). Let the equation of this function be 
Then
Subtract these two equations:
Hence,
The equation of the straight line (the graph of linear function) is 
(option E is true) This line passes through the point (0,0), because its coordinates satisfy the equation (option C is true).
Answer: d)In repeated samples of the same size, approximately 95 percent of the intervals constructed from the samples will capture the population difference in means.
Step-by-step explanation:
Confidence interval is constructed to estimate a range of values that could possibly contain the population parameter. This could be the population mean or population proportion. A 95 percent confidence interval does not mean 95% probability. It tells how confident that we are that the confidence interval contains the population proportion. If we construct 100 of the given confidence interval, we are confident that 95% of them would contain the true population parameter. Therefore, the correct option is
d)In repeated samples of the same size, approximately 95 percent of the intervals constructed from the samples will capture the population difference in means.
Answer:
Let 'x' and 'y' be two different numbers.
Leila says that 75% of a number will always be greater than 50% of a number. The inequality that represents this statement is the following:
0.75x > 0.5y
Let x = 100 and y=200. We have that:
0.75(100) > 0.5(200)
75 > 100 ❌ INCORRECT ❌
Given that we found a case in which 75% of a number is not greater than 50% of a number, we can conclude that Leila's claim is incorrect.
